Not so parliamentary

The Joint Parliamentary Committees cannot be expected to serve their intended purpose unless national interests are put above partisan politics

The leaked draft report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, or JPC, examining the government's telecom spectrum allocation policy has caused a major political storm. Its impact would be felt in the coming days and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government may have to pay a heavy price for the manner in which it has dealt with the issue. That apart, the developments of the last few days have also brought to light how India's hallowed parliamentary traditions have seen a steady deterioration in quality.

Headed by veteran Congress member of the Lok Sabha, P C Chacko, the JPC on the government's telecom spectrum allocation policy is the fifth such parliamentary body. All the previous four JPCs examined important policy issues and were invariably set up in the wake of major controversies engulfing the government of the day.

The first JPC was set up in August 1987 to inquire into allegations of payment of bribes for the purchase of Bofors guns. It was headed by Congress leader B Shankaranand. Opposition parties had boycotted that JPC on the ground that the committee had an over-representation of members belonging to the ruling party, the Congress. The JPC report on Bofors was tabled in Parliament in less than a year, in April 1988, but the Opposition parties expectedly rejected its findings.

For the Opposition parties, the big lesson from the Bofors JPC was that they should have never declined to be part of such a parliamentary committee. Even if the ruling party would have had the final say in the committee's deliberations because of its numerical strength, the Opposition parties' presence would have given them the opportunity to challenge the views of the members of the ruling party and get them reflected in the final report. Not surprisingly, no Opposition party has declined to be part of the JPCs that have been constituted since then.

In 1992, the second JPC was set up to examine irregularities in securities and banking transactions in the wake of the Harshad Mehta securities trading scam. Another JPC to probe the stock market scam was set up in April 2001, when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was in power at the Centre. The fourth JPC was also set up during the NDA regime - to examine if there were pesticide residues in soft drinks and other beverages.

The outcome of these JPCs has been fairly depressing. Often the analysis provided by the JPCs is overly influenced by the views of the dominant ruling party members. On many occasions, the recommendations have not been fully accepted. In some cases, they have even been diluted by the government. The idea of subjecting a matter of national importance to thorough scrutiny by the country's apex law-making body is, thus, defeated as it becomes a playground for partisan politics.

The fifth JPC, headed by Chacko and entrusted with the task of examining the government's telecom spectrum allocation policy, seems to be suffering from all the inadequacies that had diluted the effectiveness of the previous JPCs. For instance, the Opposition parties had demanded a JPC on the allocation of 2G spectrum by then telecom minister A Raja. The Congress made sure that the scope of the committee was widened to cover the government's telecom spectrum allocation policy implemented since 1998. The political objective was obvious: bring the NDA, and the Bharatiya Janata Party in particular, under scrutiny so that they also can be made the target of attack. Indeed, the leaked draft report of the fifth JPC shows how the heat has been turned on the NDA, after giving the UPA government and its prime minister a clean chit. Instead of bringing to light the various irregularities in the way spectrum was allocated, the draft report has tried to whitewash all the problems and improprieties.

Some current members of Parliament have recalled how the functioning of the fifth JPC has brought back memories of the manner in which the chairman of the second JPC, Ram Niwas Mirdha, Congress member of Parliament, conducted the proceedings to probe the securities scam of 1992. Opposition members had demanded almost everybody connected with the administration of the financial sector, including then finance minister Manmohan Singh, to depose before the JPC. Mirdha ensured that all such depositions took place. Opposition members were unhappy with the stance of the final report or its analysis, but they had little to complain about the way the JPC functioned. In sharp contrast, none of the ministers connected with either the framing of the telecom policy or its implementation was examined or questioned by the fifth JPC. Former telecom minister, Raja, was reportedly keen on being examined by the JPC, but even that deposition did not take place.

For Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it seems his woes with the JPC are not yet over. As finance minister in the Narasimha Rao government, he was the target of attack as the JPC had accused him of being a "sleeping finance minister" during the scam. That led to his resignation, but Rao did not accept the resignation and asked him to continue after he gave Singh a clean chit in Parliament. The draft report of the fifth JPC has given Singh, the prime minister, a clean chit, but the coming weeks will reveal if the Opposition parties would let that pass or Singh's woes with the JPC would continue for some more time.